by Fatfreek 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I decided to update the cartoon to further emphasize its inspiration adding WT's own verbiage from their official web site. For those who wish to use either in, say, postcard campaigns to loved ones and friends I'll paste both versions below for your cut and paste purposes. Len Miller
The society's response to the NBC report was so lame, so naive, so weak -- it was almost as if they sent their opponents, the good folks in this world, pennies from heaven.
They'd spent years attacking the Catholic Church and its priests for their improprieties. Not entirely bad except -- now that the shoe is on their own foot -- well, I'm nearly speechless at their response as they feign ignorance of an issue that's been going on for countless years.
I thought it best to capture exactly what their official web site verbiage is, as of this date, because I have this uneasy feeling that someone at headquarters will wise up and have it removed. Here is the evidence before it disappears quietly: Len Miller.
Great depiction there fats. I cannot believe that an actual LCSW would actually say something like that. Makes you wonder where she got her credentials. Awake University perhaps?
Thanks, neighbor.
I've seen several questions going around questioning that credentials' thing as well. Some wonder whether she would say the same thing today. Some wonder whether she would approve of the Society publishing her statements these days, and in the context of the NBC video.
No matter how blatantly ignorant her statements are about this subject, the Society cannot disavow their endorsement of them. In the back of their collective mind they may feel that they, when push comes to shove, can blame her for them when things sour. I won't buy it if and when they do. There are, of course, those with the Jim-Jones-following mentality who will. Unfortunately, many current JW's fall into that group.
As it stands the GB obviously agrees with her as it openly subscribes to what she says.
Len
I cannot believe that an actual LCSW would actually say something like that
TV / Video production and interviewing Lesson #101
Context is important. Good interviews result from clear and conscise questions and uninterupted answers. The video itself contains more edits than a music video which is an obvious sign that they took little snippets from here and there (most likely unrelated) to create a story that they could not otherwise achieve with straightforward questions. Think about the main statement referring to the 18-20 years. She does not specifically refer to child sexual abuse....she probably was talking about something entirely different....most likely some other youth oriented activity.
Her ego was probably stroked by the thought of giving an interview, she probably signed a waiver giving them free use of the material, all with the assumption that they would not re-edit her interview in order to create a specific soundbite that would attempt to explain the WTS inexcusable behavior. She is probably dying of embarrasment having been used by them, and probably can't comment because of giving them rights to do as they please with the material.
R's Hubby (in the business)
R's Hubby (in the business)
It's always good to have a professional on board who can easily spot a few holes here and there.
Think about the main statement referring to the 18-20 years. She does not specifically refer to child sexual abuse....she probably was talking about something entirely different....most likely some other youth oriented activity.
Wow, that's quite a charge. Any source to that?
Another thing is that 18-20 years we keep seeing. This was a hot issue here on JWD in 2002 (that's 5 years ago) and they were using that same number then. I wonder if anyone knows exactly when she made those statements?
Now I see why they let her make them -- if they had cited her they probably would have had to add (no less than) 5 years, making them 23-25 years.
Len Miller
FF...The fact that the video is edited no less than 8 or 9 times in the span of under 90 seconds is absolutley ridiculous. She's in one position for God's sake. They obviously took this half a line from this sentence and those few words from another sentence and created an entirely new sentence that reflected what they wanted to say.
In the absence of either the unedited footage or a verbatim transcript of the original unedited footage, it is opinion, but looking at the hack job they ended up with, things were clearly taken out of context. As far as I can tell, this person has one published article from back in 1989, probably from college. I'm sure this was probably one of her only interviews.
The quality and type of edits were of a home movie type quality and as it sits this hack job could never be aired anywhere as it currently exists.
Interviews often last for 20 or 30 minutes and can cover an awful lot of ground. Her experience is with juvenile issues of all kinds. It is generic in nature. It is very easy to ask lead in questions to elicit the type of responses you want....
For instance....When you look at the progress being made in terms of childrens rights in third world countries, how would contrast the awareness today compared to 20 years ago?
Bottom line...rewatch the video. Each cut, (if you can keep up) when combined with a new set of words, represents a misrepresentation of the facts. This video was created for the web...there were no time limitations...there was no reason to edit it 8 or 9 times...air the original unedited footage.....unless of course you were intentionally altering the message in a dishonest way.
Judging by the clothes and hairstyle the video looks to be from the mid to late 90's. The 18 to 20 years could come from an unrelated question or unrelated subject....i.e. they could have been talking about increased teen suicide or another recent issue or phenomena.
R's Hubby
FF...I more thing, you can tell by the lighting and framing that this interview was not done by professionals. It was not edited by professionals...and most of all when you present a series of snippets taken at various times during the interview and present them as a new continuous thought process....that is well, dishonest.
It would be no different than combining words from 8 different parts of scriptures from entirely different books of the bible, presenting it in one new paragraph and calling it a new revelation....something they would no doubt get away with if they could.
BTW the way you get around this dilema in the real world of false advetising, is that you would let her deliver her first half thought, then you would cut to stock footage (before the first obvious cut as the edited soundbite plays in the background) then you would go from stock footage back to her interview toward the end so she can deliver her last thoughts. With that method you see no cuts whatsoever and most people then assume that it is one fluid train of thought. Of course, then guys like me could still pick it apart based on the inflection of her voice, sound level variation and in this case, just plain lack of fluid thought process.
It is obvious if you look at the quoted statement about 18-20 years taken strictly by itself, that she could be speaking about anything related to adolescents. She could be talking about "screaming at your kid" or "excessively spanking your kid" or "bullying in school" etc....All of them would apply better than the inference to child sexual abuse. The most braindead parent in the world understands (without needing to be told) that pedaphelia is wrong and has a devestating impact.
It is common decency and good form to allow interviews to be shown in their original form and unedited so that the viewer can be certain they are not being intentionally manipulated by an over zealous editor. This concept like so many others, is irrelevant to the amateurs in Brooklyn, who stumble over themselves in an attempt to justify and coverup their bumbling misdeeds.
R's Hubby
R's Hubby,
You seem to have much insight in the technical aspects of such productions -- a valuable asset here on JWD.
Knowing full well that numerous attempts have been made to contact Dr. Bethea-Jackson, I just placed in my mailbox a letter addressed to her. I doubt it will be answered but what's a $0.41 investment?
I, of course, have no technical expertise in such matters and can only ask a common question. If she answers the question she may also decide to shed light on other matters which you so eloquently voice.
My question: As I watch the video, it appears to my untrained eye that it may be quite old. Would you be so kind as to confirm approximately when this video was done?
Len Miller
I wonder why the WBTS is relying on someone apparently involved in the Catholic milieu to support their misdeeds. I would suspect the "18-20 years ago" quote is quite dated (or not on point), though perhaps some backwater areas (but OHIO??) were not aware that raping children is bad, m'kay?
